1AC - Farm Subsidy Overhaul - C-X

1AC – Farm Subsidy Overhaul Page |1
The Silver Bullet – The Case for Farm Subsidy Overhaul

- Jennifer Hoffpauir, writing for the Fordham Environmental Law Review, said in 2009 that:
“Environmental considerations may or may not influence American farmers, but government subsidies certainly do. Since the Great
Depression, the federal government has been subsidizing key agricultural commodities, and virtually all farmers
growing these commodities have been affected by government programs, either directly or indirectly. These
government subsidies stimulate crop production, ‘and to the extent that such increases in output impose unintended
and unaccounted for environmental costs on society, those environmental costs can be seen as a form of government
“policy failure.”’ The full ramification of that policy failure with regard to environmental costs has never been fully realized by the federal
government.”
Jennifer Hoffpauir [Juris Doctorate Candidate at the Georgetown University Law Center (2009)], “The Environmental Impact of Commodity
Subsidies: NEPA and the Farm Bill,” Article Published in the Fordham Environmental Law Review, Spring 2009, (20 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev.
233) [Ethos]
- Because my partner and I believe that there is a solution to this policy failure, we are strongly resolved: That the
United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy.
- First, we would like to clarify the boundaries of the round by offering key Definitions…
A) Environmental policy. Professors Natalia Mirovitskaya and William Ascher explained that:
“Environmental policy includes regulations to prohibit or limit pollution and resource depletion; incentives policies (including tax
measures) to encourage environmental improvements and to discourage pollution and depletion, and direct environmental
efforts to clean up, protect, or restore ecosystems.”
Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya [Ph.D. in Economics from the Russian Academy of Sciences; Visiting Professor of Environmental Policy at Duke
University] & Dr. William L. Ascher [Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale University; Professor of Government and Economics at Claremont
McKenna College], “The guide to Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development,” Book Published by the Duke University Press, 2001,
p. 186 [Accessed via Google Books]
B) The Conservation Stewardship Program. The National Resources Conservation Service notes that:
“The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) is a voluntary conservation program that encourages [agricultural]
producers to address resource concerns in a comprehensive manner by:
• Undertaking additional conservation activities; and
• Improving, maintaining, and managing existing conservation activities.
CSP is available on Tribal and private agricultural lands and non-industrial private forest land in all 50 States and the Caribbean and Pacific
Islands Areas. The program provides equitable access to all producers, regardless of operation size, crops produced, or geographic location. The
Secretary of Agriculture has delegated the authority for CSP to the NRCS Chief.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Resources Conservation Service, “Conservation Stewardship Program,” Page last updated on
January 27, 2010, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/new_csp/csp.html [PB] [brackets added for clarity]
C) Sustainable agriculture.
(1) The U.S. Department of State defines it as:
“Farming methods that conserve the environment by minimizing damage to soil, water sources, species habitat and
other natural resources. Examples include no-till farming, crop rotation, and prevention of runoff or leaching of fertilizers and pesticides.”
The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Information Programs [engages international audiences on issues of foreign policy,
society and values to help create an environment receptive to U.S. national interests; communicates with foreign opinion makers and other
publics through a wide range of print and electronic outreach materials published in English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Persian, Russian, and
Spanish; also provides information outreach support to U.S. embassies and consulates in more than 140 countries worldwide], “Glossary of
Environmental Terms,” June 26, 2009, http://www.america.gov/st/env-english/2008/July/20080725134616mlenuhret2.274722e-02.html [PB]
Black/Byrd/Cotton PSDC
(2) Professor Mary Jane Angelo said in 2010 that:
“The Union of Concerned Scientists identifies five key techniques of sustainable agriculture as: crop rotation; cover
crops; soil enrichment; natural pest predators; and bio-intensive integrated pest management.”
Professor Mary Jane Angelo [Associate Professor of Law at the University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law], “Corn, Carbon and
Conservation: Rethinking U.S. Agricultural Policy in a Changing Global Environment,” Article Published by the University of Florida Levin
College of Law, January 18, 2010, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1537178 [PB]
- Now that we have defined the relevant terms of this round, let us take a look at the Current System…
Point #1: Currently, the vast majority of agricultural subsidies go to just a few commodity crops
- William S. Eubanks, Environmental Law Expert, stated in 2009 that:
“The Farm Bill originated as a temporary fix to protect small farmers during the farm crisis of the early 1930s. Although it met
its primary goal of bringing the nation back to stability, [but] the tide gradually turned as profit-seeking corporations co-opted
the Farm Bill and excluded the small farmer that the bill initially sought to protect. For nearly the past half-century, agricultural
subsidies for a select few commodity crops have wreaked havoc on every facet of our nation’s natural environment
as industrial farming has taken hold.”
William S. Eubanks II [an Environmental Law Attorney (Associate Attorney at the Washington D.C. public interest environmental law firm of
Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal); Master’s of Law Degree in Environmental Law, summa cum laude (with highest praise – an honor added to
diplomas and degrees for work that is considered to be of the highest quality) from the Vermond Law School (2008); Juris Doctorate, magna
cum laude (with great praise – an honor added to a diploma or degree for work considered greatly above average), from the North Carolina
Central University School of Law (2007)], “The Sustainable Farm Bill: A Proposal for Permanent Environmental Change,” Article Published in
the Stanford Environmental Law Journal, (28 Stan. Envtl. L.J.) [Ethos]
Point # 2: U.S. past attempts to conserve farm land have failed to provide necessary funding and
comprehensive programs
- Professor Mary Jane Angelo noted in 2010 that:
“Although these [conservation] programs encourage certain conservation practices, they do not address the overarching
environmental concerns associated with industrial commodity production – i.e., [such as] the unsustainability due to high
energy (i.e., fossil fuel) inputs, the widespread environmental harms caused by chemical outputs (i.e., fertilizer and pesticides) and the loss of
biodiversity and ecological integrity due to large-scale monoculture production. The largest program, the CRP and WRP, are
land set aside program and thus do not address in any way the manner in which farming is carried out. Moreover, all of the programs are
voluntary with strict limits on the types and amounts of lands that can be enrolled and on the types of practices that qualify for the subsidies.
Moreover, the amount of money devoted to these conservation programs pales in comparison to the money expended on
commodity subsidy programs described above. For example, approximately 1.5 billion dollars per year is spent on the CRP as compared to the
20 billion dollars per year spent on the commodity subsidy programs.”
College of Law, January 18, 2010, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1537178 [PB] [brackets added for clarity]
- In order to remedy the U.S. policy failures of the past decades, we present to you the following Plan…
Agency: Congress and the President.
Mandates: (1) Reform the Conservation Stewardship Program. CSP payments will be redefined to give
subsidies specifically to farmers who use sustainable agricultural methods as defined above.
Payments shall mirror Cost-Share payments, which have complied with World Trade Organization
Standards.
(2) Expand the CSP into the commodity subsidy program. Congress shall replace Title I
commodity subsidies (with the exclusion of dairy subsidies) with CSP sustainable agriculture
subsidies; so that all of the subsidies formerly offered to farmers growing commodity crops will
instead be given to farmers using sustainable agriculture methods.
Enforcement: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the USDA’s
Conservation Stewardship Program.
Funding: Shall come from the funding currently used for the distribution and enforcement of commodity subsidies
and CSP payments.
- My partner and I reserve the right to clarify this plan in future speeches.
Finally, we would like to offer the Justifications for our plan…
Justification #1: Market Distortion

A. Commodity subsidy requirements result in a surplus of commodity crops, driving down the price of
unhealthy foods made from these crops
- Senator Richard G. Lugar said in 2007 that:
“If the only thing wrong with the farm bill were that it took from the poor to give to the rich, it would rank high among our nation’s most
perverse public policies. But there’s more. Not only does our policy unfairly subsidize wealthy farmers, it particularly subsidizes a few
commodity crops at the expense of other agricultural products. The five big crops – wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans and rice –
rake in 90% of the subsidies. Thus we subsidize the manufacture of such things as high-fructose corn syrup and
hydrogenated vegetable oils, in the process lowering the price of all those [of the] ‘junk food’ snacks [that] parents are
supposed to discourage their kids from eating. Meanwhile, healthy [food] snacks such as fresh fruits and vegetables, being
unsubsidized, are [is] made relatively more expensive.”
Senator Richard G. Lugar [the longest serving U.S. Senator in Indiana history; graduated first in his class at Denison University in Granville,
Ohio; attended Pembroke College at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, studying politics, philosophy and economics; has 40 honorary
degrees from colleges and universities in 14 states and the District of Columbia; was the fourth person ever named Outstanding Legislator by the
American Political Science Association], “Agricultural subsidies take from poor, give to rich,” Article Published in the Kennebec Journal,
November 9, 2007, http://lugar.senate.gov/farmbill/oped/75.cfm [PB] [brackets added]
B. As a result, the content of the food Americans consume has been changed – to the detriment of our health
- Patrick Johnson said December 2008 that:
“Modern farm policy is built around the explicit support of a few commodities, most notably corn. Over the past
three decades corn-derived products have begun appearing in more and more foods as prices have continued to fall.
Americans are now victim to an overabundance of cheap corn, and many health professionals feel the increase in
corn-derived sweeteners that has resulted from this cheap corn is at least partially responsible for the current obesity
and diabetes epidemics (Alston, Sumner and Vosti 2006, Bray, Nielsen and Popkin 2004, Fields 2004, Poirot 2005).”
Patrick Johnson [Senior Consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton; research assistant at the heritage foundation; Conference Facilitator at Civic
Concepts International; has obtained degrees in Economics and Political Science], “U.S. Farm Policy: Subsidizing Poor Health?” Article
Published by the Heritage Foundation [the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with more than 515,000 individual,
foundation and corporate donors; has a staff of 244 and an expense budget of $61 million; has a mission to formulate and promote conservative
public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong
national defense], December 2008, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/wp032609b.cfm [PB]
C. Our plan eliminates this problem, as subsidizing sustainable agriculture would correct price distortion
- According to William Eubanks:
“Subsidizing sustainable agriculture would also result in more vegetables and fruits since there would be
governmental incentives to grow these healthy foods. At the same time, less subsidy emphasis on corn-based and
soy-based fatty foods would ultimately equalize the market and these low-nutrient foods would no longer cost nearly one-fifth the
price per calorie of carrots and other vegetables.”
Justification #2: The Environment

A. The monocultures that farmers must use if they are to receive commodity subsidies require large inputs of
fertilizers and pesticides
- Jennifer Hoffpauir said in 2009 that:
“The agricultural monocultures encouraged by commodity subsidies require large applications of pesticides and
fertilizers in order to obtain high yields. Reduced crop diversity significantly increases crop losses due to insects and
pathogens and reduces soil organic matter. These problems lead to increased use of pesticides and fertilizers.”
Jennifer Hoffpauir [Juris Doctorate Candidate at the Georgetown University Law Center (2009)], “The Environmental Impact of Commodity
Subsidies: NEPA and the Farm Bill,” Article Published in the Fordham Environmental Law Review, Spring 2009, (20 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev.
233) [Ethos]
B. The fertilizers and pesticides used by commodity farms endanger public health and devastate water
ecosystems
- Eubanks noted in 2009 that:
“Much of the fertilizer applied to agricultural fields ends up as runoff that is leached into streams and rivers. Not
only do these toxic chemicals ultimately move downstream implicating public health concerns, but these fertilizers
also pollute water bodies and harm aquatic species and fishing communities that rely on those water bodies. As more
algae is created from increased chemical nutrient levels in the water, less oxygen is available for phytoplankton and other organisms in the
aquatic ecosystem. When the oxygen slips below a certain level, the water takes on the effects of hypoxia, or a shortage of oxygen. A hypoxic
area quickly becomes a dead zone because fish and other mobile organisms leave due to the lack of oxygen and all other organisms die off and
cause a food chain collapse.”
C. By eliminating the incentives for monoculture under the commodity program, and instead giving
incentives for sustainable agriculture, our plan would solve for this problem
- Professor Mary Jane Angelo explained in 2010 that:
“U.S. [farm] subsidy programs should be completely overhauled to encourage the development of a sustainable
agricultural system. One of the most promising means of accomplishing this goal is to combine existing commodity
subsidy programs with existing conservation subsidy programs into one subsidy program, which compensates
farmers of a wide variety of crops for conserving a range of critical ecosystem services. Such an approach could
result in a shift from an agricultural system in which croplands are in essence industrial wastelands with little or no ecological value and
which are used primarily to produce industrial feedstocks, to a more sustainable system in which agricultural lands are healthy,
sustainable systems providing a number of critical ecosystem services that benefit the public and serve as a source of
healthful food.”
College of Law, January 18, 2010, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1537178 [PB] [brackets added]
- For decades, the United States has adhered to a policy that is outdated. Subsidizing commodity crops has resulted
in harmful price distortions and resulted in an industrialized system that takes little consideration to its impact on the
environment. By subsidizing sustainable farming practices, the U.S. will be taking a step toward the protection of
the health of its citizens and the environment as a whole. Let’s make this step a reality.

1AC - Farm Subsidy Overhaul - C-X

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1AC - Farm Subsidy Overhaul - C-X

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1AC – Farm Subsidy Overhaul Page |1

The Silver Bullet – The Case for Farm Subsidy Overhaul

(1) The U.S. Department of State defines it as:

(2) Professor Mary Jane Angelo said in 2010 that:

- William S. Eubanks, Environmental Law Expert, stated in 2009 that:

- Professor Mary Jane Angelo noted in 2010 that:

Agency: Congress and the President.

Finally, we would like to offer the Justifications for our plan…

Justification #1: Market Distortion

- Senator Richard G. Lugar said in 2007 that:

- Patrick Johnson said December 2008 that:

- According to William Eubanks:

Justification #2: The Environment

- Jennifer Hoffpauir said in 2009 that:

- Eubanks noted in 2009 that:

- Professor Mary Jane Angelo explained in 2010 that:

You might also like